What is whataboutism?
Whataboutism is deflection from one social justice issue to another. It is a tactic of derailment that demonstrates not only a lack of solidarity and a misunderstanding of a key element of social justice: shared struggle. Essentially in a debate, one issue is weaponised, and is brought up to detract or minimise the struggle of one group in comparison to another. It is never brought up by the detractors in its own right, because the detractors simply do not care about it. They only bring it up to dismiss the first issue.
Why is whataboutism relevant to migration?
When we talk about rights and justice for migrants, something that often comes up is the idea that our advocacy comes at the expense of other marginalised groups in society. It insinuates that we are only capable of caring about one group of people. ‘What-about-ism’ basically aims to deflect from actually helping either group.
Deflection tactics
Retorts of “what about X?” divide us by pitting marginalised groups against each other. This false binary treats policy decisions as a trade off between groups, e.g. the false claim that housing asylum seekers and giving them a weekly stipend is at the expense of assistance for low-income citizens or unhoused people.
We know that this is untrue, not least because punitive policies that impact low-income citizens, such as benefits sanctions and a lack of social housing, do not occur at the benefit of migrants. In fact, refugees have also experienced a spike in houselessness as a result of a lack of Government support once they obtain refugee status. Low-income migrants are also particularly impacted because they have to pay the ever-increasing health surcharge and visa fees on top of the already high cost of living in this country and not being entitled to access to public funds.
‘Whataboutists’ don’t genuinely care about the issue they are raising. They pretend that migrants can’t also experience hardship, and they only bring up the issue they are raising when it is to deflect: they never campaign on or speak about this issue otherwise.
‘Who is more deserving?’
The notion of deservingness creates a hierarchy of belonging in our society, where only those who “contribute” are considered “good” citizens worthy of respect. This idea is particularly present when people invoke veterans’ experiences. We often receive criticism that our support of migrants is misplaced because veterans have been abandoned by the Government after their military service. They believe that because these people have “served their country”, they are more deserving of government support than migrants.
This hierarchy of deservingness is visible too in false accusations that migrants make up the majority of occupants of social housing in this country, which is false, but demonstrates a belief that People of Colour, regardless of citizenship status, are not equally British and are therefore less entitled to public and social services than White Britons.
To acknowledge the hardship and issues faced by marginalised groups does not deny the existence of other marginalised groups issues. For example, trans migrants often facing higher levels of discrimination: 40.2% of trans migrants have experienced housing difficulties in Europe, compared to 25.62% of all trans people, and 41.08% of trans migrants in Europe have experienced job discrimination, compared to 34.42% of all trans people and 20.83% of all LGBT+ people.
To highlight what trans migrants face, does not do a disservice to other migrant groups .. In fact, it demonstrates how much more needs to be tackled and from several angles including through building solidarity amongst all affected groups and communities.
This is especially important when It is dangerous to suggest that we can only hold space for one group of people, especially when that can mean another group of people, who are subjected to multiple systems of oppression, are then left out of conversations and denied protection.
Ultimately, this serves the systems and policies that work against us all, like capitalism and austerity. The Government also benefits from constructing false narratives of scarcity, leading to scapegoating, often of migrants. All of us are impacted by exclusionary conceptions of contribution, worth and deservingness, where marginalised groups, including migrants, are positioned as “burdens” on the state and therefore worth less as people and dehumanised. Instead of shifting which marginalised group is considered the burden, we should eliminate the idea of conditional acceptance in relation to deservingness and “contribution”.
We need to recognise that it is not migrants who are oppressing houseless people, low income people, veterans, or other marginalised groups. It is the Government that oppresses all these groups, including migrants, and then uses migrants as a scapegoat to distract from the fact that its own austerity policies are responsible for UK-wide poverty.